Kent v Griffiths & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal arises from a judgment by Mr Justice Turner concerning a claim against the London Ambulance Service ("LAS") for failing to arrive within a reasonable time following a '999' call. The claimant, an asthmatic, suffered an asthma attack and her doctor requested an ambulance urgently. Despite multiple calls and assurances, the ambulance arrived significantly late, resulting in the claimant suffering respiratory arrest. The ambulance crew falsified arrival records, and the judge found the delay culpable and attributable to the LAS's carelessness. The judge awarded damages against the LAS but dismissed claims against the claimant's doctors. The LAS was granted permission to appeal on the novel legal issue of whether such a duty of care exists. The claimant cross-appealed on damages, to be heard later.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an ambulance service owes a duty of care to a member of the public on whose behalf a '999' call is made if it fails to arrive within a reasonable time due to carelessness.
2. Whether the principles established in prior cases regarding emergency services' duties apply to ambulance services.
3. The applicability of the three-part test from Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman—foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty—in establishing a duty of care in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The LAS contended that emergency services, including ambulance services, owe no private law duty to respond to '999' calls or to arrive within a reasonable time unless their acts create an additional danger.
• They relied on precedents such as Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council (fire brigade), Alexandrou v Oxford (police), and OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (coastguards), which establish no duty to respond promptly to emergency calls.
• They argued that even if negligence in performing a statutory duty is alleged, liability arises only if the three Caparo requirements are met; foreseeability and fairness are accepted, but proximity is denied.
• The LAS emphasized that the relationship with the claimant lacked sufficient proximity, citing X v Bedfordshire County Council.

Claimant's Arguments

• The claimant relied on three unchallenged factual findings: the urgency was communicated, the LAS accepted the request, and the ambulance was unduly delayed.
• She argued these facts established sufficient proximity, distinguishing this case from Capital & Counties because the ambulance service dealt with a specific individual, not the public at large.
• She contended that the ambulance service, as part of the National Health Service, should owe the same duty of care as other health service providers.
• The claimant asserted that the LAS caused additional damage by delay, and there was no conflict about to whom the duty was owed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004	Fire brigade owes no common law duty to respond promptly to emergency calls; duty owed to public at large; liability arises only if rescue service's own negligence creates additional danger.	Distinguished on facts; ambulance service owes duty to individual claimant once call accepted, unlike fire brigade's general duty to public.
Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328	Police do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public in responding to '999' calls absent a special relationship; foreseeability alone insufficient.	Binding precedent; court considered proximity lacking in police context but found ambulance service position different due to individual focus.
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1997] 3 All ER 897	Coastguards owe no duty to respond promptly absent creation of additional danger.	Used to support appellant’s argument but court found ambulance service’s statutory and health care role distinguished it.
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605	Established three-part test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty.	Court accepted foreseeability and fairness but found proximity established in this case due to specific acceptance of ambulance call.
X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633	Limits on duty of care in public authority functions; distinction between exercise of discretion and implementation of duty.	Guided analysis of statutory duties and powers; court found ambulance service’s acceptance of call was more than discretionary exercise.
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74	Statutory bodies exercising discretionary powers owe no duty of care unless they create additional danger.	Referenced to explain limits of liability for statutory bodies; court found ambulance delay unjustified and causing additional damage.
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923	Exercise of statutory powers does not automatically create a duty of care.	Supported distinction between powers and duties; court found LAS’s acceptance of call created a duty beyond mere power.
Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999] 3 WLR 79	Duty of care can arise when authority acts outside discretion; cautions against importing administrative law concepts into negligence.	Endorsed approach stressing factual detail; court applied this to find duty of care owed by LAS.
Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146	Police acting in rescue capacity are not volunteers and owe duty of care when undertaking specific tasks.	Court rejected treating LAS as volunteers; ambulance service viewed as statutory health provider with duty of care.
Costello v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] 1 All ER 550	Police liable for negligence causing unnecessary risk to officers.	Referenced to illustrate public expectations of duty of care in emergency contexts; court found similar public concern justified duty here.
Osman v The UK [1999] 1 FLR 193 (ECtHR)	Warned against blanket immunities in duty of care cases involving public authorities; emphasized case-specific analysis.	Influenced court’s cautious approach; emphasized need to examine facts rather than apply rigid rules.
McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410	Foreseeability does not automatically create a duty of care; requires special relationship.	Supported principle that proximity must be established beyond foreseeability; court found proximity here due to acceptance of call.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the established principle that emergency services generally owe their primary duty to the public at large, not to individual members. Precedents involving fire brigades and police indicated no common law duty to respond promptly to individual emergency calls absent creation of additional danger. However, the court distinguished ambulance services from other emergency services due to their statutory health care role and the nature of the service provided.

The court emphasized the importance of the specific facts: the ambulance service had accepted the call, creating a relationship of sufficient proximity with the claimant. This acceptance meant the ambulance service undertook to provide the service, and the claimant relied on this. The court noted that the ambulance delay was unjustified and caused additional harm, which further supported the existence of a duty of care.

The court applied the three-part Caparo test, accepting foreseeability and fairness, and finding that proximity was established by the specific acceptance and reliance. It rejected the appellant’s argument that the ambulance service was akin to a volunteer or that public policy considerations precluded liability, distinguishing ambulance services from police and fire brigades. The court also acknowledged that while policy considerations may limit liability in other emergency contexts, they were weaker here due to the individual focus and health care nature of the service.

Overall, the court concluded that the LAS owed a duty of care once it accepted the call and failed to attend within a reasonable time without justification, causing further injury to the claimant.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming that the London Ambulance Service owed a duty of care to the claimant once it accepted the '999' call and that the failure to attend promptly without reasonable explanation constituted a breach causing damage.

The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the claimant's entitlement to damages for the ambulance service's negligence. The court did not create a broad new precedent exempting ambulance services from liability; rather, it distinguished ambulance services from other emergency services and confirmed that duty of care can arise in such contexts. The ruling emphasizes the importance of factual analysis and proximity in establishing duties of care involving public authorities.